mrshowrules:I've been arguing for years that single-payer is one of the best things the US could do to help small businesses.

Oh it absolutely is, but that's not the point. Baby steps. It's progress, and that's what counts. They'll get there, it's just a matter of time.

The next trick, and it's a toughie, is convincing Conservatives that the government could be more efficient than the corporate. And that's really gonna take some doing, unfortunately, there'll have to be some ugly, ugly foul-ups.

What's the countdown before the outrage that we shouldn't call it Obamacare anymore now that it is constitutional? I doubt we go a week before the Right Wing hypocrisy comes full circle and starts complaining about how it shouldn't be called that.

So now the spin is that "Obamacare is forcing more money into the insurance company coffers?" Wow, just a little ways up the thread it was "Insurance company stocks are tumbling because real Murikans know that this ruling puts insurance companies out of business."

Grungehamster:I don't get how the Medicaid thing works; how is it that increasing the funding for a program for the states while also increasing the requirements for the states to qualify for the program is illegal unless you still give the states the previous level of funding if they comply with the previous requirements? The government changes the amount the states must match all the time for states, and it's always been they either accept the new rules or forgo federal funding for Medicaid (correct me if I'm wrong). Now that they are saying "we're increasing funding so you will have to pay more to match it" the Court has decided states can determine what amount they are willing to pay and the federal government must adjust funding to match what the state offers instead of saying that they aren't meeting the requirements? Were they just talking about the language in the bill itself or is this an overarching principle that might be applied elsewhere?

You read that wrong. Requirements were INCREASED, funding as DECREASED. That's why the states were going guanopsycho

justtray:What's the countdown before the outrage that we shouldn't call it Obamacare anymore now that it is constitutional? I doubt we go a week before the Right Wing hypocrisy comes full circle and starts complaining about how it shouldn't be called that.

Give it about 6 months after the last of the provisions take effect and people realize it makes their lives better before the Republicans start trying to take credit for it.

HeartBurnKid:Sid_the_sadist: I'm going to quit my job and go on welfare now. fark you guys, you pay for my shiat from now on. Including my healthcare.

If that's what you want, go right ahead. I think you'll find that it's not the wine and roses you think.

Also, good luck in getting money from all the rejection letters you get from unemployment since you quit your job, and all the rejection letters you get from the other social programs because you're "too lazy" to look for a job at all...

Dig it, Righties - Boomers are gonna die soon, and America's turning brown. You're done, and the smart ones see it and are moving back toward moderate positions.You can't lead, and you're too dumb to follow - so get the f**k out of the way.

Say what you will about conservatives, but I have to admire how awesome the echo chamber is at getting out their message.

Obamacare went from "it's unconstitutional!" to "It's a tax!" in 2 seconds flat across the board on every conservative news site, twitter account, radio station, and of course FOX. My red state relatives are already repeating it.

I remember when it was going through congress and the phrase was "it's being shoved down our throats!"... and you could tell who watched conservative news because they not only used similar words (or similar arguments), but the EXACT SAME WORDING VERBATIM to state their case. If you pay attention to it you can see the pattern repeating across issues again and again.

EatenTheSun:Here's how I see it playing out: Company realizes it's cheaper to pay a $2000 fine than provide insurance, drops insurance coverage. Employee realizes it's cheaper to pay the tax than buy insurance, goes without coverage. Huge shift in uninsured to the working class.

I partially see point #1. Companies provide/subsidize health insurance now because it's hard to get any kind of skilled worker without it. If PPACA stands (further Congressional action), employers won't have quite the incentive to do so, since their employees can get private insurance in the exchange market.

Point #2: Depends on the subsidy level. People who make too much to qualify for subsidies under PPACA will generally buy the insurance, because they have typically assets to lose in a bankruptcy. People who don't make that much will have their insurance largely subsidized. That is, if the subsidies are funded in annual appropriations bills... we'll see about that.

However, let me throw out this hypothetical. Will there be insurers for those exchanges? Halfway decent ones? It's hard to see Aetna and the BCBSs committing hari-kiri and getting out of the insurance business. But, if the mandates to provide care and the lack of ability to discriminate mean that it's simply unprofitable to offer exchange plans? Then they won't. They might provide plans only to employer groups. Or just fold. I'm a little concerned that we'll end up with exchanges with either no plans at all, or only uber-crap fly-by-night plans.

Eventually, under the the PPACA 'state exchange' framework, we could end up with a system mirroring Canada's provincial/territorial-run public health plans.

physt:Thunderpipes: TwistedFark: bdub77: WombatControl: Legally, this was a piss-poor decision. Yes, the Commerce Clause end of things was upheld, but the SCOTUS basically saved Congress by doing something that Congress never intended to do. That's judicial activism. If Congress had intended the mandate to be a tax, they could have done so directly. SCOTUS inferred that's what they did, which is not the proper role of a judge.

Politically, anyone who wants to argue this is good for Obama is kidding themselves. This is the worst outcome for Obama. (The best being the bill being upheld under the Commerce Clause, the second best being the bill being totally struck down.) Why is this the worst outcome?

1.) This just energized the living fark out of the GOP base. It was ObamaCare that motivated the Tea Party in 2010. Now it's going to do the same in 2012.

2.) It just took away their "RomneyCare" attacks. (Yes, the whole "RomneyCare" bit was incoherent to begin with, but it's less coherent now.)

3.) Obama is now responsible for a major middle-class tax increase. After saying that he wouldn't raise taxes. Repeatedly. This will be in every Romney attack ad through this election season. It should be in them now.

From now on, it's not "ObamaCare." It's the "Obama Health Care Tax". Let's have the President own his massive tax hike right through to November.

Doesn't matter. Americans got health care. This is a win for the American people, not just Obama. Obama will now go down as the first president who got Americans health care. His legacy in that regard, not to mention countless other things he's done as president, will solidify him as one of the greats.

And yes I expect him to fully whip Romney's ass in November.

I'm not much of a political fan boy, but I have to agree in regards to Obama's legacy. He's managed to accomplish quite a bit in this term - and a fair bit more than I can recall any of the last 4 President's doing.

He sure has. No President in history has run up ...

Actually, Obama has made even "W" look like an amateur when it comes to running up debt.